Rochester schools project small surplus as board prepares June 17 vote on 2025–26 budget

Rochester Public School District officials told the school board on June 3 that next year’s proposed budget preserves the district’s referendum commitments, maintains class sizes and programming, and projects a small surplus while relying in part on one-time and prior‑year revenues.

John Carlson, presenting the finance team’s numbers, said the proposal shows about $408 million in new revenues next year and roughly $443 million in total expenditures across all funds, with an expected surplus of about $317,000 after applying assigned, prior‑year revenues. "When we apply that into the mix, we do have a projected surplus of $317,000," Carlson said.

Board members and staff emphasized why the referendum passed last year matters to the plan. Superintendent McCall told the board that the voter‑approved referendum was intended to stabilize operations, not to create new long‑term spending, and said setting the referendum at the level voters approved helped avoid deeper cuts. "Leaving aside the fact that the budget projection we're gonna hear about tonight would be dramatically different had that not passed," McCall said, calling the community vote a "vote of confidence."

The budget presentation said the proposal keeps class‑size targets, avoids school closures and preserves existing programming. The plan also uses assigned fund balances and timing of certain revenues: proceeds from bonds approved previously and set to be received in mid‑June will be applied to construction and technology needs and counted as prior‑year revenue for FY26. Carlson said the district will also draw on E‑rate savings for a Skyward upgrade and other assigned reserves for planned equipment replacement.

Why it matters: the budget affects staffing, programs and services across the district. Carlson said the general fund funds about 2,410 full‑time equivalent positions, roughly 93% of district employees, and that about 80% of employee costs are student‑facing roles such as teachers, principals and student‑support staff. The presentation projects average daily membership at 16,444 and noted the district will continue to monitor enrollment and adjust staffing at the start of school where needed.

Board members asked several detailed questions during the presentation. Director Cook asked about special education funding and long‑term pressure from rising special‑education expenses; McCall and finance staff said special‑education costs are driven by students’ assessed needs and that the district has tightened staffing ratios but remains concerned about the gap between state reimbursement and local costs. Carlson said employee salaries and benefits account for about 78–79% of general fund spending and that the forecast assumes some vacancy savings based on historical patterns.

Next steps and calendar: the district will refine a few pending state aid numbers before the June 17 meeting, when the board is scheduled to take action on the 2025–26 budget. Carlson and McCall said they will present a five‑year financial forecast at a future meeting to show longer‑term implications, and staff will post detailed budget tables and supporting materials after board approval.

Context and constraints: the presentation notes that some revenues—COVID era federal funds and a school‑based mental health grant—are ending or reduced, and the budget counts the first‑half costs of the latter through December 2025. The plan also assumes state K–12 funding growth tied to inflation and includes the per‑pupil increase tied to the district’s referendum ($1,133 per pupil on the voter ballot). Finance staff described the proposal as a balanced‑budget model for the general fund that intentionally budgets for vacancy savings and uses assigned fund balances for one‑time needs rather than recurring spending.

Board reaction: members expressed appreciation for the clarity of the materials and asked for clearer visuals to explain how prior‑year assigned revenues are applied to next year’s plan. Several board members asked for additional, future work on special‑education finance and on the district’s long‑term staffing posture if enrollment trends continue to decline.

Ending: district staff said they will continue to refine legislative and aid estimates and bring the final budget for board action at the June 17 meeting.